discuss: EPD CORE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE - Version 0.1

[John Cowan]

Bill Moran scripsit:

> How, exactly, should we approach this?  Create a new license that contains
> the above verbage, which would be a derivative of the QPL, or is that
> overkill?  I could simply put the third paragraph in the header of each
> distributed file - would that be enough?

IANAL, but it sounds good to me.  After all, you are not really modifying
the QPL, you are just indicating what it does and does not apply to.

>  From a grander standpoint, does the open source community need another
> license (such as I'm trying to accomplish)?  If so, would it be worthwhile
> to create the license anyway, so others have it available as well?  Or am
> I still in the land of overkill?

The fewer licenses, frankly, the better; each one is more work for this
list to analyze and other people to make sense of.  If you say you use
the GPL or the BSD or the MPL or some other well-understood license, people
know what to expect.  If you have a license unique to you, programmers and
users have to plow through the legalese to figure out their rights and
responsibilities.

-- 
John Cowan           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              cowan at ccil.org
To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all.  There
are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language
that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful.
        --_The Hobbit_
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3